Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-08

Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15B23A67B3; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3uygpnj4hz6n; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5261C3A6407; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LAV00LSY7LVXG@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:27:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LAV009S07LV5T@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:27:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([109.64.15.67]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LAV00MXJ7LPQV@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:27:31 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:27:10 +0200
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
Subject: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-08
To: 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>
Message-id: <024f01cb748b$671051b0$3530f510$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_HHpd21o4YnC6mPszX1Fsnw)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: Act0i1+7Caim7pq9STWMSXfbAMuiRQ==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:32:32 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req.all@tools.ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:25:59 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

 

Document: draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2010-10-25

IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-10

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.       In section 2  why not reference RFC 2119 or at least  copy the
definition from RFC 2119 for  the capitalized term.

2.       In section 3.9 when you say "if this technique is used", by this do
you mean certificate -less or the flow defined in the previous sentence.

3.       In section 4.6.3 the first paragraph defines the requirements for
Cryptographic Binding. It looks to me like the rest of the section talks
about a specific use case, so why is it in the requirements section and not
in section 3. 

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments: